Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/10/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Walt, You're lucky you still have Rodinal. I'm down to my last half bottle. Even J and C never seems to have the older 09 formula in stock. I agree with you on scanned transparency photos. Since I shoot outdoors in sunlight with high contrast Leica lenses, I find the better films like Velvia are much too contrasty though. Kodak E100 is much more natural and gives me beautiful prints. I don't shoot color negatives any more. Not since developing and printing my own color in the mid 80's. The work (and cost) was in the printing. I don't mind trying C-41 though. But I do get E-6 turn around in 24 hours. Very handy. Len On Oct 28, 2006, at 10:20 AM, Walt Johnson wrote: > Len > > Right now I've a bag full of Fomapan 400 and a stockpile of > Rodinal. I can't really tell any difference between TX and HP5 and > if it were not so overpriced I'd shoot Bergger. It had been quite a > few years since shooting any E-6 film but recently I scanned a > transparency and it blew me away. They make fine monochromes for > those seeking details. I've tried to give up b&w film in favor of > C-41 and Photoshop but something keeps tugging at the back of my mind. > > For one thing, when I process my own b&w it is done right. Dropping > my C-41 off at a lab always makes me nervous. Kodak's Ultra Color > C-41 would almost make doing your own color neg processing > worthwhile though since it is amazing film. > > Walt > > Leonard Taupier wrote: > >> Have you tried an old style film like the Efke (Adox) KB25? I like >> it a lot even if you have to be careful how you handle it. I >> always preferred Panatomic-X and Plus-X to get the tonality in my >> landscapes and still life photos in the 60's. Currently I use >> APX100 and Fuji Acros 100 with X-tol. I still like my DR but when >> a certain mood hits I bring out the Efke and the collapsible >> Summicron. My type of photo never needed the speed or the grain >> of Tri-X. As film shooters we are still very fortunate to have >> these choices. Film ain't dead yet. >> >> Len >> >> >> On Oct 27, 2006, at 10:48 PM, Walt Johnson wrote: >> >>> I've always labored under the assumption slower, thin emulsion >>> films have steeper curves and consequently are higher contrast. >>> I wished it were possible to find some Tri-X circa 1970 because >>> these newer films really seem to lack depth. They are certainly >>> sharp as hell and grainless but also toneless compared to what >>> once was. I picked up a collapsible a few years back with the >>> usual haze that can be hard to see. Leitz redid it for me and >>> image wise it compares with my late model Summicron. >>> I sure can;t help but feel the look we all knew and loved >>> related to film and developer rather than lens characteristics. >>> >>> Walt >>> >>> Alastair Firkin wrote: >>> >>>> Ah, at last I can offer an opinion ;-) I have the collapsible >>>> Summicron on my M3. It is a lens I choose above others when I >>>> want a slightly 1960's feel to the result: using this lens >>>> with Plus X like film makes images I recognise, gives a >>>> feeling that is different to the more modern glass: I suppose >>>> its "softness" and would suffer in lens tests, but it would >>>> have been perfect for your "grab" shot the other day of the >>>> two people kissing. >>>> >>>> Others will prefer Tri X, but I never liked Tri X. Being a >>>> contrary bastard, I really disliked the high contrast grainy >>>> images my peers were making in the 1970's and therefore always >>>> bought Plus X Pan --- I use mainly APX 100 for the similar >>>> feeling now. >>>> >>>> One down side to the lens is that the f stop ring is a bit >>>> stiff and rotating it sometimes unlocks the barrel, but I'm >>>> used to that now. One plus is that it can be used to pre-focus >>>> with its "tab" far more easily (certainly than the DR >>>> summicron which lacks the tab) because the focus ring is >>>> "exposed" when the lens is "mounted" and easy to feel without >>>> looking. >>>> >>>> Great lens in "some" ways and good travel companion. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> On 27/10/2006, at 23:03, Luis Ripoll wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I would appreciate your experienced opinions about the >>>>> Collapsible Summicron >>>>> 50mm. I had the "Rigid" Summicron, I've sold it because it >>>>> had fungus and >>>>> make a lot of haze, but I regret the nice richness of grey >>>>> tones that this >>>>> lens gave me. >>>>> >>>>> Now I have 3 lenses of 50 mm: Summicron model of the year >>>>> 198/199..., >>>>> Summilux (1964), and the new Elmar. I'm looking for the >>>>> Collapsible >>>>> Summicron to have the "nostalgia" subtle tones of the past. >>>>> >>>>> Could I have some opinions about how it will compare with my >>>>> actual 50mm >>>>> lenses (Summilux and Elmar)? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks in advance for your opinions and advice >>>>> >>>>> Saludos desde Barcelona >>>>> Luis >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more >>>>> information >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more >>>> information >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information